Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite
Year 2022, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 108 - 112, 24.01.2022
https://doi.org/10.38053/acmj.1034966

Abstract

Supporting Institution

yok

Project Number

yok

References

  • Soare C, Lasithiotakis K, Dearden H, Singh S, McNaught C. The surgical management of rectal prolapse. Indian J Surg 2020: 1-7.
  • Samaranayake C, Luo C, Plank A, Merrie A, Plank L, Bissett I. Systematic review on ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and intussusception. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12: 504-12.
  • Emile SH, Elfeki H, Shalaby M, Sakr A, Sileri P, Wexner SD. Outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness external rectal prolapse: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of the predictors for recurrence. Surg Endosc 2019; 33: 2444-55.
  • Nacion AJD, Park YY, Kim HS, Yang SY, Kim NK. Surgical treatment of rectal prolapse: a 10-year experience at a single institution. J Minim Invasive Surg 2019; 22: 164-70
  • Leventoglu S, Mentes B, Balci B, Yildiz A. Surgical techniques for rectal prolapse. Gastroenterol Insights 2021; 12: 310-8.
  • Bordeianou L, Paquette I, Johnson E, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 2017; 60: 1121-31.
  • Loh KC, Umanskiy K. Ventral Rectopexy. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2021; 34: 62-8.
  • Tsunoda A, Takahashi T, Matsuda S, Oka N, Kusanagi H. Midterm functional outcome after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse. Asian J Endoscopic Surg 2020; 13: 25-32.
  • Mäkelä-Kaikkonen J, Rautio T, Kairaluoma M, et al. Does ventral rectopexy improve pelvic floor function in the long term? Dis Colon Rectum 2018; 61: 230-8.
  • Fu CW, Stevenson AR. Risk factors for recurrence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Dis Colon Rectum 2017; 60: 178-86.
  • Jorge JMN, Wexner SD. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1993; 36: 77-97.
  • Ahmad NZ, Stefan S, Adukia V, Naqvi SAH, Khan J. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: functional outcomes after surgery. Surg J 2018; 4: e205-e11.
  • Lundby L, Iversen LH, Buntzen S, Wara P, Høyer K, Laurberg S. Bowel function after laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a double-blind, randomised single-centre study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 1: 291-7.
  • Maggiori L, Bretagnol F, Ferron M, Panis Y. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective long-term evaluation of functional results and quality of life. Tech Coloproctol 2013; 17: 431-6.
  • Tsunoda A. Surgical treatment of rectal prolapse in the laparoscopic era; a review of the literature. J Anus Rectum Colon 2020; 4: 89-99.
  • Gleditsch D, Wexels WA, Nesbakken A. Surgical options and trends in treating rectal prolapse: long-term results in a 19-year follow-up study. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 2018; 403: 991-8.
  • Steele SR, Goetz LH, Minami S, Madoff RD, Mellgren AF, Parker SC. Management of recurrent rectal prolapse: surgical approach influences outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 2006; 49: 440-5.
  • Tsunoda A, Takahashi T, Ohta T, Fujii W, Kusanagi H. New-onset rectoanal intussusception may not result in symptomatic improvement after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse. Tech Coloproctol 2016; 20: 101-7.
  • Madbouly KM, Youssef M. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy versus laparoscopic wells rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse: long-term results. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 2018; 28: 1-6.
  • Jonkers HF, Maya A, Draaisma W, Bemelman W, Broeders I, Consten E, et al. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy versus laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse. Tech Coloproctol 2014; 18: 641-6.

Is laparoscopic ventral rectopexy a good treatment option for rectal prolapse?

Year 2022, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 108 - 112, 24.01.2022
https://doi.org/10.38053/acmj.1034966

Abstract

Aim: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) is one of the most commonly performed procedures in the treatment of rectal prolapse (RP). This study aimed to evaluate postoperative changes in the incontinence status and short-term functional outcomes of patients with RP who underwent LVR.
Material and Method: This study included 15 patients who underwent LRV with the diagnosis of RP between January 2017 and June 2021 at Health Sciences University Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital and Ankara City Hospital. Data were obtained by retrospectively examining the electronic records of the patients. The Wexner incontinence score (WIS) was calculated preoperatively and postoperatively by contacting the patients by phone at six months after the operation. In addition, the constipation status of the patients and whether they had recurrence of RP were questioned.
Results: The mean age of the 15 patients included in the study was 55 (range, 30-81) years. Twelve (80%) patients were female and three (20%) were male. When the preoperative and postoperative WISs of the patients were compared, the latter was statistically significantly lower than the former (p=0.002). Among the 10 (66.7%) patients who had constipation in the preoperative period, this complaint was resolved in four (40%), but new-onset constipation was detected in two (40%) of the five (33.3%) patients without preoperative constipation. The recurrence of RP was observed in only one (6.7%) patient in the postoperative follow-up.
Conclusion: Considering the short-term outcomes in the patients who underwent LRV for RP, it can be concluded that LVR is a good option in this patient group, with a low recurrence rate and satisfactory improvement in incontinence.

Project Number

yok

References

  • Soare C, Lasithiotakis K, Dearden H, Singh S, McNaught C. The surgical management of rectal prolapse. Indian J Surg 2020: 1-7.
  • Samaranayake C, Luo C, Plank A, Merrie A, Plank L, Bissett I. Systematic review on ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and intussusception. Colorectal Dis 2010; 12: 504-12.
  • Emile SH, Elfeki H, Shalaby M, Sakr A, Sileri P, Wexner SD. Outcome of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness external rectal prolapse: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis of the predictors for recurrence. Surg Endosc 2019; 33: 2444-55.
  • Nacion AJD, Park YY, Kim HS, Yang SY, Kim NK. Surgical treatment of rectal prolapse: a 10-year experience at a single institution. J Minim Invasive Surg 2019; 22: 164-70
  • Leventoglu S, Mentes B, Balci B, Yildiz A. Surgical techniques for rectal prolapse. Gastroenterol Insights 2021; 12: 310-8.
  • Bordeianou L, Paquette I, Johnson E, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 2017; 60: 1121-31.
  • Loh KC, Umanskiy K. Ventral Rectopexy. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2021; 34: 62-8.
  • Tsunoda A, Takahashi T, Matsuda S, Oka N, Kusanagi H. Midterm functional outcome after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse. Asian J Endoscopic Surg 2020; 13: 25-32.
  • Mäkelä-Kaikkonen J, Rautio T, Kairaluoma M, et al. Does ventral rectopexy improve pelvic floor function in the long term? Dis Colon Rectum 2018; 61: 230-8.
  • Fu CW, Stevenson AR. Risk factors for recurrence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Dis Colon Rectum 2017; 60: 178-86.
  • Jorge JMN, Wexner SD. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1993; 36: 77-97.
  • Ahmad NZ, Stefan S, Adukia V, Naqvi SAH, Khan J. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: functional outcomes after surgery. Surg J 2018; 4: e205-e11.
  • Lundby L, Iversen LH, Buntzen S, Wara P, Høyer K, Laurberg S. Bowel function after laparoscopic posterior sutured rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a double-blind, randomised single-centre study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 1: 291-7.
  • Maggiori L, Bretagnol F, Ferron M, Panis Y. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective long-term evaluation of functional results and quality of life. Tech Coloproctol 2013; 17: 431-6.
  • Tsunoda A. Surgical treatment of rectal prolapse in the laparoscopic era; a review of the literature. J Anus Rectum Colon 2020; 4: 89-99.
  • Gleditsch D, Wexels WA, Nesbakken A. Surgical options and trends in treating rectal prolapse: long-term results in a 19-year follow-up study. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 2018; 403: 991-8.
  • Steele SR, Goetz LH, Minami S, Madoff RD, Mellgren AF, Parker SC. Management of recurrent rectal prolapse: surgical approach influences outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 2006; 49: 440-5.
  • Tsunoda A, Takahashi T, Ohta T, Fujii W, Kusanagi H. New-onset rectoanal intussusception may not result in symptomatic improvement after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse. Tech Coloproctol 2016; 20: 101-7.
  • Madbouly KM, Youssef M. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy versus laparoscopic wells rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse: long-term results. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 2018; 28: 1-6.
  • Jonkers HF, Maya A, Draaisma W, Bemelman W, Broeders I, Consten E, et al. Laparoscopic resection rectopexy versus laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse. Tech Coloproctol 2014; 18: 641-6.
There are 20 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Health Care Administration
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Tezcan Akın 0000-0001-8786-6269

Sadettin Er 0000-0003-0712-3153

Hüseyin Berkem 0000-0002-1326-3163

Erdinç Çetinkaya 0000-0001-9249-1502

Elif Nur Gencer This is me 0000-0002-8623-593X

Gizem Güneş 0000-0001-5761-4052

Ahmet Keşşaf Aşlar This is me 0000-0003-1636-7950

Bülent Cavit Yüksel 0000-0001-5270-6492

Project Number yok
Early Pub Date January 21, 2022
Publication Date January 24, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022 Volume: 4 Issue: 1

Cite

AMA Akın T, Er S, Berkem H, Çetinkaya E, Gencer EN, Güneş G, Aşlar AK, Yüksel BC. Is laparoscopic ventral rectopexy a good treatment option for rectal prolapse?. Anatolian Curr Med J / ACMJ / acmj. January 2022;4(1):108-112. doi:10.38053/acmj.1034966

TR DİZİN ULAKBİM and International Indexes (1b)

Interuniversity Board (UAK) Equivalency:  Article published in Ulakbim TR Index journal [10 POINTS], and Article published in other (excuding 1a, b, c) international indexed journal (1d) [5 POINTS]

Note: Our journal is not WOS indexed and therefore is not classified as Q.

You can download Council of Higher Education (CoHG) [Yüksek Öğretim Kurumu (YÖK)] Criteria) decisions about predatory/questionable journals and the author's clarification text and journal charge policy from your browser. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/journal/3449/file/4924/show

Journal Indexes and Platforms: 

TR Dizin ULAKBİM, Google Scholar, Crossref, Worldcat (OCLC), DRJI, EuroPub, OpenAIRE, Turkiye Citation Index, Turk Medline, ROAD, ICI World of Journal's, Index Copernicus, ASOS Index, General Impact Factor, Scilit.


The indexes of the journal's are;

18596


asos-index.png

f9ab67f.png

WorldCat_Logo_H_Color.png

      logo-large-explore.png

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQgDnBwx0yUPRKuetgIurtELxYERFv20CPAUcPe4jYrrJiwXzac8rGXlzd57gl8iikb1Tk&usqp=CAU

index_copernicus.jpg


84039476_619085835534619_7808805634291269632_n.jpg





The platforms of the journal's are;

COPE.jpg

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbq2FM8NTdXECzlOUCeKQ1dvrISFL-LhxhC7zy1ZQeJk-GGKSx2XkWQvrsHxcfhtfHWxM&usqp=CAUicmje_1_orig.png

cc.logo.large.png

ncbi.png

ORCID_logo.pngimages?q=tbn:ANd9GcQlwX77nfpy3Bu9mpMBZa0miWT2sRt2zjAPJKg2V69ODTrjZM1nT1BbhWzTVPsTNKJMZzQ&usqp=CAU


images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTaWSousoprPWGwE-qxwxGH2y0ByZ_zdLMN-Oq93MsZpBVFOTfxi9uXV7tdr39qvyE-U0I&usqp=CAU






The
 
indexes/platforms of the journal are;

TR Dizin Ulakbim, Crossref (DOI), Google Scholar, EuroPub, Directory of Research Journal İndexing (DRJI), Worldcat (OCLC), OpenAIRE, ASOS Index, ROAD, Turkiye Citation Index, ICI World of Journal's, Index Copernicus, Turk Medline, General Impact Factor, Scilit 


EBSCO, DOAJ, OAJI is under evaluation.

Journal articles are evaluated as "Double-Blind Peer Review"